On Saturday 02 September 2006 00:10, Jean Tourrilhes wrote: > On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 08:55:48PM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > > > > > Note that one thing that worry me with your approach is > > > footprint. I've used various embedded devices over the years, such as > > > the Gumstix (4MB Flash), and this is why WE was optimised for > > > footprint. > > > > Can you please explain in more detail, how WE + the WE-netlink wrapper > > has lower footprint than this netlink-only layer? > > WE-netlink is optional. And WE-ioctl could be made optional > (still on the todo list). You can also disable WE-event and WE-iwspy > for further footprint reduction.
And we don't need all this stuff on these devices? OK, nl80211 can easily be made optional, too. > > > > The real > > > > problem with WE is, as I previously said, the ill-defined semantics of > > > > both the user-space API and the in-kernel API. > > > > > > I don't understand why you say it's ill defined, it 100% > > > documented in the iwconfig man page. > > > > It is horribly documented. > > There is one big union and one magic "extra" parameter. > > You have to guess (or look at other implementations) to find > > out which element of the union or even if and how to use the extra > > parameter. That's a real pain. > > And after you found out which element to use, you have to figure > > out somehow how to actually use that element. That's nontrivial, > > escpecially because some flags (that are not documented) may > > magically change the whole semantics of the contents. > > If you are trying to write WE without reading any other code, > that's true. But that's not the way sane people work. Sane people > cut'n'paste from other drivers, and then check the source code of > iwconfig (which is fully commented) in case of doubt. > It's strange, many driver authors are not afraid of asking me > questions, but some can't manage to do that. Heh, well. I would say sane code should not raise the questions in the first place. > > In my opinion this > > "One function signature fits all" design used in WE is simply > > broken by design. > > So, are you saying that the 'syscal' design is broken by > nature ? I've never seen the kernel and glibc people complaining about > it. ?? All syscalls have the same function signature? I doubt that. > It was designed this way on purpose, because you get low > footprint and very good scalability. And I've yet to see anyone > tripped by it. I don't see how this is lower footprint. A function pointer is always the same size. Regardless of how the function looks like. -- Greetings Michael. -- VGER BF report: U 0.5 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
